Limos vs Odones

Facts:
 On June 17, 2005, private respondents-spouses, Francisco Odones and Arwenia Odones, filed a
complaint for Annulment of Deed, Title and Damages against petitioners Socorro Limos, Rosa Delos
Reyes and Spouses Rolando Delos Reyes and Eugene Delos Reyes before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
 The complaint alleged that spouses Odones are the owners of a 940-square meter parcel of land located
at Pao 1st, Camiling, Tarlac by virtue of an Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale dated, January 29,
2004, executed by the surviving grandchildren and heirs of Donata Lardizabal in whom the original title
to the land was registered
 These heirs were Soledad Razalan Lagasca, Ceferina Razalan Cativo, Rogelio Lagasca Razalan and
Dominador Razalan.
 It took a while before respondents decided to register the document of conveyance; and when they did,
they found out that the land’s Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was cancelled on April 27, 2005 and
replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 329427 in the name of herein petitioners
 Petitioners were able to secure TCT No. 329427 by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed
by Donata Lardizabal and her husband Francisco Razalan on April 18, 1972.
 Petitioners then subdivided the lot among themselves and had TCT No. 329427 cancelled
o In lieu thereof, three new TCTs were issued: TCT No. 392428 in the names of Socorro Limos and
spouses Rolando Delos Reyes and Eugene Delos Reyes
o TCT No. 392429 in the names of Spouses Delos Reyes and TCT No. 392430 in the name of Rosa
Delos Reyes.
 Respondents sought the cancellation of these new TCTs on the ground that the signatures of Donata
Lardizabal and Francisco Razalan in the 1972 Deed of Absolute Sale were forgeries, because they died on
June 30, 1926 and June 5, 1971, respectively
 In response, petitioners filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars claiming ambiguity in respondents’ claim
that their vendors are the only heirs of Donata Lardizabal
 Finding no merit in the motion, the trial court denied the same and ordered petitioners to file their
answer to the complains
 In their answer, petitioners pleaded affirmative defenses, which also constitute grounds for dismissal of
the complaint. These grounds were:
(1) failure to state a cause of action inasmuch as the basis of respondents’ alleged title is void,
since the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale was not published and it contained formal
defects, the vendors are not the legal heirs of Donata Lardizabal, and respondents are not the
real parties-in-interest to question the title of petitioners, because no transaction ever occurred
between them;
(2) non-joinder of the other heirs of Donata Lardizabal as indispensable parties; and
(3) respondents’ claim is barred by laches.
 In their Reply, respondents denied the foregoing affirmative defenses, and
o Insisted that the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale was valid
o They maintained their standing as owners of the subject parcel of land and the nullity of the
1972 Absolute Deed of Sale, upon which respondents anchor their purported title
o They appended the sworn statement of Amadeo Razalan
 Thereafter, petitioners served upon respondents a Request for Admission
 Respondents failed to respond to the Request for Admission, prompting petitioners to file a Motion to
Set for Preliminary Hearing on the Special and Affirmative Defenses, arguing that respondents’ failure to
respond or object to the Request for Admission amounted to an implied admission pursuant to Section
2 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court
  As such, a hearing on the affirmative defenses had become imperative because petitioners were no
longer required to present evidence on the admitted facts
 Respondents filed a comment on the Motion, contending that the facts sought to be admitted by
petitioners were not material and relevant to the issue of the case as required by Rule 26 of the Rules of
Court
 Respondents emphasized that the only attendant issue was whether the 1972 Deed of Absolute Sale
upon which petitioners base their TCTs is valid
 In its Resolution dated November 16, 2006, the RTC denied the Motion and held that item nos. 1 to 4 in
the Request for Admission were earlier pleaded as affirmative defenses in petitioners
o Answer, to which respondents already replied on July 17, 2006
o Hence, it would be redundant for respondents to make another denial
o The trial court further observed that item nos. 5, 6, and 7 in the Request for Admission were
already effectively denied by the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale appended to the
complaint and by the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Amadeo Razalan attached to respondents’ Reply
 Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in an Order dated January 5, 2007.18
 Petitioners elevated this incident to the CA by way of a special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the impugned resolution and order
 On August 14, 2008, the CA dismissed the petition ruling that the affirmative defenses raised by
petitioners were not indubitable, and could be best proven in a fullblown hearing
 Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioners are now before this Court seeking a
review of the CA’s pronouncements
o In essence, petitioners contend that the affirmative defenses raised in their Motion are
indubitable, as they were impliedly admitted by respondents when they failed to respond to the
Request for Admission
o As such, a preliminary hearing on the said affirmative defenses must be conducted pursuant to
our ruling in Gochan v. Gochan

Issue:
WON the non-joinder of an indispendable party is a ground for dismissal of an action?

Ruling:
 NO
 Anent the alleged non-joinder of indispensable parties, it is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable
parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action
 The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable
 Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage
of the action and/or such times as are just
 It is only when the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court,
that the latter may dismiss the complaint